Comparative Access to and Use of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening by Women's Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status

Comparing accuracy of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography or synthetic 2D mammography in breast cancer screening: baseline results of the MAITA RCT consortium

AIM

The analyses here reported aim to compare the screening performance of digital tomosynthesis (DBT) versus mammography (DM).

METHODS

MAITA is a consortium of four Italian trials, REtomo, Proteus, Impeto, and MAITA trial. The trials adopted a two-arm randomised design comparing DBT plus DM (REtomo and Proteus) or synthetic-2D (Impeto and MAITA trial) versus DM; multiple vendors were included. Women aged 45 to 69 years were individually randomised to one round of DBT or DM.

FINDINGS

From March 2014 to February 2022, 50,856 and 63,295 women were randomised to the DBT and DM arm, respectively. In the DBT arm, 6656 women were screened with DBT plus synthetic-2D. Recall was higher in the DBT arm (5·84% versus 4·96%), with differences between centres. With DBT, 0·8/1000 (95% CI 0·3 to 1·3) more women received surgical treatment for a benign lesion. The detection rate was 51% higher with DBT, ie. 2·6/1000 (95% CI 1·7 to 3·6) more cancers detected, with a similar relative increase for invasive cancers and ductal carcinoma in situ. The results were similar below and over the age of 50, at first and subsequent rounds, and with DBT plus DM and DBT plus synthetic-2D. No learning curve was appreciable. Detection of cancers >= 20 mm, with 2 or more positive lymph nodes, grade III, HER2-positive, or triple-negative was similar in the two arms.

INTERPRETATION

Results from MAITA confirm that DBT is superior to DM for the detection of cancers, with a possible increase in recall rate. DBT performance in screening should be assessed locally while waiting for long-term follow-up results on the impact of advanced cancer incidence.

Disparities in Breast Cancer Care-How Factors Related to Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Drive Inequity

Breast cancer survival has increased significantly over the last few decades due to more effective strategies for prevention and risk modification, advancements in imaging detection, screening, and multimodal treatment algorithms. However, many have observed disparities in benefits derived from such improvements across populations and demographic groups. This review summarizes published works that contextualize modern disparities in breast cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and presents potential strategies for reducing disparities. We conducted searches for studies that directly investigated and/or reported disparities in breast cancer prevention, detection, or treatment. Demographic factors, social determinants of health, and inequitable healthcare delivery may impede the ability of individuals and communities to employ risk-mitigating behaviors and prevention strategies. The disparate access to quality screening and timely diagnosis experienced by various groups poses significant hurdles to optimal care and survival. Finally, barriers to access and inequitable healthcare delivery patterns reinforce inequitable application of standards of care. Cumulatively, these disparities underlie notable differences in the incidence, severity, and survival of breast cancers. Efforts toward mitigation will require collaborative approaches and partnerships between communities, governments, and healthcare organizations, which must be considered equal stakeholders in the fight for equity in breast cancer care and outcomes.

Social determinants of health and health inequities in breast cancer screening: a scoping review

Introduction

This scoping review aims to highlight key social determinants of health associated with breast cancer screening behavior in United States women aged ≥40  years old, identify public and private databases with SDOH data at city, state, and national levels, and share lessons learned from United States based observational studies in addressing SDOH in underserved women influencing breast cancer screening behaviors.

Methods

The Arksey and O'Malley York methodology was used as guidance for this review: (1) identifying research questions; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selecting studies relevant to the research questions; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results.

Results

The 72 included studies were published between 2013 and 2023. Among the various SDOH identified, those related to socioeconomic status (n = 96) exhibited the highest frequency. The Health Care Access and Quality category was reported in the highest number of studies (n = 44; 61%), showing its statistical significance in relation to access to mammography. Insurance status was the most reported sub-categorical factor of Health Care Access and Quality.

Discussion

Results may inform future evidence-based interventions aiming to address the underlying factors contributing to low screening rates for breast cancer in the United States.

Raising Cultural Awareness and Addressing Barriers to Breast Imaging Care for Black Women

Health care disparities, which are differences in the attainment of full health potential among population groups, have been documented across medical conditions, clinical settings, and diagnostic and treatment modalities. Deeply rooted health care disparities due to many factors have affected how Black women (BW) view medical care including screening mammography. This article explores health care disparities around breast cancer in BW and how patient distrust, provider biases, race, and social determinants of health continue to have negative effects on breast cancer outcomes in BW, despite medical advances in breast cancer detection and management. In addition, this article addresses the importance of culturally competent care for BW around breast cancer awareness, screening, and treatment, and offers strategies to address disparities and rebuild trust.

Breast Cancer Disparity and Outcomes in Underserved Women

Women in the United States who continue to face obstacles accessing health care are frequently termed an underserved population. Safety-net health care systems play a crucial role in mitigating health disparities and reducing burdens of disease, such as breast cancer, for underserved women. Disparities in health care are driven by various factors, including race and ethnicity, as well as socioeconomic factors that affect education, employment, housing, insurance status, and access to health care. Underserved women are more likely to be uninsured or underinsured throughout their lifetimes. Hence they have greater difficulty gaining access to breast cancer screening and are less likely to undergo supplemental imaging when needed. Therefore, underserved women often experience significant delays in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, leading to higher mortality rates. Addressing disparities requires a multifaceted approach, with formal care coordination to help at-risk women navigate through screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Mobile mammography units and community outreach programs can be leveraged to increase community access and engagement, as well as improve health literacy with educational initiatives. Radiology-community partnerships, comprised of imaging practices partnered with local businesses, faith-based organizations, homeless shelters, and public service departments, are essential to establish culturally competent breast imaging care, with the goal of equitable access to early diagnosis and contemporary treatment. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Test Your Knowledge questions are available in the Online Learning Center. See the invited commentary by Leung in this issue.

Identifying and Addressing Barriers to Screening Mammography in a Medically Underserved Community

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Breast cancer mortality is 40% higher for Black women compared to White women. This study seeks to assess knowledge of breast cancer screening recommendations and identify barriers to risk assessment and mammographic screening among a medically underserved, low-income, predominantly Black community in West Philadelphia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During a free mobile mammography screening event, women were offered surveys to assess perceptions of and barriers to breast cancer risk assessment and screening. Among those who subsequently underwent mobile screening, health insurance and time to additional diagnostic imaging and biopsy, when relevant, were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

233 women completed surveys (mean age 54 ± 13 years). Ninety-three percent of respondents identified as Black. The most frequently cited barrier to screening mammography was cost and/or lack of insurance coverage (30%). Women under 50 reported more barriers to screening compared to older women. Among those recalled from screening and recommended to undergo biopsy, there was a trend toward longer delays between screening and biopsy among those without a PCP (median 45 days, IQR 25-53) compared to those with a PCP (median 24 days, IQR 16-29) (p = 0.072).

CONCLUSION

In a study of a medically underserved community of primarily Black patients, barriers to breast cancer risk assessment, screening, and diagnosis were identified by self-report and by documented care delays. While free mobile mammography initiatives that bring medical professionals into communities can help mitigate barriers to screening, strategies for navigation and coordination of follow-up are critical to promote timely diagnostic resolution for all patients.

Population simulation modeling of disparities in US breast cancer mortality

BACKGROUND

Populations of African American or Black women have persistently higher breast cancer mortality than the overall US population, despite having slightly lower age-adjusted incidence.

METHODS

Three Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network simulation teams modeled cancer mortality disparities between Black female populations and the overall US population. Model inputs used racial group-specific data from clinical trials, national registries, nationally representative surveys, and observational studies. Analyses began with cancer mortality in the overall population and sequentially replaced parameters for Black populations to quantify the percentage of modeled breast cancer morality disparities attributable to differences in demographics, incidence, access to screening and treatment, and variation in tumor biology and response to therapy.

RESULTS

Results were similar across the 3 models. In 2019, racial differences in incidence and competing mortality accounted for a net ‒1% of mortality disparities, while tumor subtype and stage distributions accounted for a mean of 20% (range across models = 13%-24%), and screening accounted for a mean of 3% (range = 3%-4%) of the modeled mortality disparities. Treatment parameters accounted for the majority of modeled mortality disparities: mean = 17% (range = 16%-19%) for treatment initiation and mean = 61% (range = 57%-63%) for real-world effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Our model results suggest that changes in policies that target improvements in treatment access could increase breast cancer equity. The findings also highlight that efforts must extend beyond policies targeting equity in treatment initiation to include high-quality treatment completion. This research will facilitate future modeling to test the effects of different specific policy changes on mortality disparities.

Racial and Ethnic Variation in Diagnostic Mammography Performance among Women Reporting a Breast Lump

BACKGROUND

We evaluated diagnostic mammography among women with a breast lump to determine whether performance varied across racial and ethnic groups.

METHODS

This study included 51,014 diagnostic mammograms performed between 2005 and 2018 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium among Asian/Pacific Islander (12%), Black (7%), Hispanic/Latina (6%), and White (75%) women reporting a lump. Breast cancers occurring within 1 year were ascertained from cancer registry linkages. Multivariable regression was used to adjust performance statistic comparisons for breast cancer risk factors, mammogram modality, demographics, additional imaging, and imaging facility.

RESULTS

Cancer detection rates were highest among Asian/Pacific Islander [per 1,000 exams, 84.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 72.0-98.2)] and Black women [81.4 (95% CI: 69.4-95.2)] and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [42.9 (95% CI: 34.2-53.6)]. Positive predictive values (PPV) were higher among Black [37.0% (95% CI: 31.2-43.3)] and White [37.0% (95% CI: 30.0-44.6)] women and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [22.0% (95% CI: 17.2-27.7)]. False-positive results were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 exams, 183.9 (95% CI: 126.7-259.2)] and lowest among White women [112.4 (95% CI: 86.1-145.5)]. After adjustment, false-positive and cancer detection rates remained higher for Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women (vs. Hispanic/Latina and White). Adjusted PPV was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander women.

CONCLUSIONS

Among women with a lump, Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women were more likely to have cancer detected and more likely to receive a false-positive result compared with White and Hispanic/Latina women.

IMPACT

Strategies for optimizing diagnostic mammography among women with a lump may vary by racial/ethnic group, but additional factors that influence performance differences need to be identified. See related In the Spotlight, p. 1479.

Budget Neutrality and Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Reimbursement Trends for Radiologists, 2005 to 2021

PURPOSE

The Medicare program, by law, must remain budget neutral. Increases in volume or relative value units (RVUs) for individual services necessitate declines in either the conversion factor or assigned RVUs for other services for budget neutrality. This study aimed to assess the contribution of budget neutrality on reimbursement trends per Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary for services provided by radiologists.

METHODS

The study used aggregated 100% of Medicare Part B claims from 2005 to 2021. We computed the percentage change in reimbursement per beneficiary, actual and inflation adjusted, to radiologists. These trends were then adjusted by separately holding constant RVUs per beneficiary and the conversion factor to demonstrate the impact of budget neutrality.

RESULTS

Unadjusted reimbursement to radiologists per beneficiary increased 4.2% between 2005 and 2021, but when adjusted for inflation, it declined 24.9%. Over this period, the conversion factor declined 7.9%. Without this decline, the reimbursement per beneficiary would have been 9 percentage points higher in 2021 compared with actual. RVUs per beneficiary performed by radiologists increased 13.1%. Keeping RVUs per beneficiary at 2005 levels, reimbursement per beneficiary would have been 12.1 percentage points lower than observed in 2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Given budget neutrality, a substantial decline has occurred in inflation-adjusted reimbursement to radiologists per Medicare beneficiary. Decreases due to both inflation and the decline in conversion factor are only partially offset by increased RVUs per beneficiary, meaning more services per patient with less overall pay, an equation likely to heighten access challenges for Medicare beneficiaries and shortages of radiologists.

Impact of High Neighborhood Socioeconomic Deprivation on Access to Accredited Breast Imaging Screening and Diagnostic Facilities

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the presence or absence of accredited breast imaging facilities in ZIP codes with high or low neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation.

METHODS

A retrospective ecological study design was used. Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage rankings at the ZIP code level were defined by the University of Wisconsin Neighborhood Atlas Area Deprivation Index. Outcomes included the presence or absence of FDA- or ACR-accredited mammographic facilities, accredited stereotactic biopsy or breast ultrasound facilities, and ACR Breast Imaging Centers of Excellence. US Department of Agriculture rural-urban commuting area codes were used to define urban and rural status. Access to breast imaging facilities in high-disadvantage (≥97th percentile) and low-disadvantage (≤3rd percentile) ZIP codes was compared using χ2 tests, stratified by urban or rural status.

RESULTS

Among 41,683 ZIP codes, 2,796 were classified as high disadvantage (1,160 rural, 1,636 urban) and 1,028 as low disadvantage (39 rural, 989 urban). High-disadvantage ZIP codes were more likely rural (P < .001) and less likely to have FDA-certified mammographic facilities (28% versus 35%, P < .001), ACR-accredited stereotactic biopsy (7% versus 15%, P < .001), breast ultrasound (9% versus 23%, P < .001), or Breast Imaging Centers of Excellence (7% versus 16%, P < .001). Among urban areas, high-disadvantage ZIP codes were less likely to have FDA-certified mammographic facilities (30% versus 36%, P = .002), ACR-accredited stereotactic biopsy (10% versus 16%, P < .001), breast ultrasound (13% versus 23%, P < .001), and Breast Imaging Centers of Excellence (10% versus 16%, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

People living in ZIP codes with high socioeconomic disadvantage are less likely to have accredited breast imaging facilities within their ZIP codes, which may contribute to disparities in access to breast cancer care experienced by underserved groups living in these areas.

Disparity in Breast Cancer Care: Current State of Access to Screening, Genetic Testing, Oncofertility, and Reconstruction

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women, accounting for an estimated 30% of all new cancer diagnoses in women in 2022. Advances in breast cancer treatment have reduced the mortality rate over the past 25 years by up to 34% but not all groups have benefitted equally from these improvements. These disparities span the continuum of care from screening to the receipt of guideline-concordant therapy and survivorship. At the 2022 American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress, a panel session was dedicated to educating and discussing methods of addressing these disparities in a coordinated manner. While there are multilevel solutions to address these disparities, this article focuses on screening, genetic testing, reconstruction, and oncofertility.

National Performance Benchmarks for Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Background It is important to establish screening mammography performance benchmarks for quality improvement efforts. Purpose To establish performance benchmarks for digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening and evaluate performance trends over time in U.S. community practice. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, DBT screening examinations were collected from five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries between 2011 and 2018. Performance measures included abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, and false-negative rate (FNR) and were calculated based on the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, fifth edition, and compared with concurrent BCSC DM screening examinations, previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database benchmarks, and expert opinion acceptable performance ranges. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance measures across radiologists (n = 84 or n = 73 depending on metric) and were presented as percentiles. Results A total of 896 101 women undergoing 2 301 766 screening examinations (458 175 DBT examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-111 years] and 1 843 591 DM examinations [median age, 58 years; age range, 18-109 years]) were included in this study. DBT screening performance measures were as follows: AIR, 8.3% (95% CI: 7.5, 9.3); CDR per 1000 screens, 5.8 (95% CI: 5.4, 6.1); sensitivity, 87.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 89.4); specificity, 92.2% (95% CI: 91.3, 93.0); and FNR per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 1.0). When compared with BCSC DM screening examinations from the same time period and previously published BCSC and National Mammography Database performance benchmarks, all performance measures were higher for DBT except sensitivity and FNR, which were similar to concurrent and prior DM performance measures. The following proportions of radiologists achieved acceptable performance ranges with DBT: 97.6% for CDR, 91.8% for sensitivity, 75.0% for AIR, and 74.0% for specificity. Conclusion In U.S. community practice, large proportions of radiologists met acceptable performance ranges for screening performance metrics with DBT. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Moy in this issue.

Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in Breast Imaging

There is great interest in the development of artificial intelligence (AI) applications for medical imaging in general and specifically in breast imaging. Because of the scale of application and the potential for harm, there has been a parallel interest in assuring that these new technologies are scrutinized and applied in ethical ways. The four principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice are widely accepted as a framework for bioethical analysis. We incorporate a fifth principle of explicability (adapted from Floridi and Cowls) because of the unique considerations of AI. We review definitions of each of these principles and provide examples of their practical application to breast imaging.

Mammographic Screening in Routine Practice: Multisite Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screenings

Background The use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasing over digital mammography (DM) following studies demonstrating lower recall rates (RRs) and higher cancer detection rates (CDRs). However, inconsistent interpretation of evidence on the risks and benefits of mammography has resulted in varying screening mammography recommendations. Purpose To evaluate screening outcomes among women in the United States who underwent routine DM or DBT mammographic screening. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study included women aged 40-79 years who underwent DM or DBT screening mammograms between January 2014 and December 2020. Outcomes of RR, CDR, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1), biopsy rate, and positive predictive value of biopsy (PPV3) were compared between DM and DBT with use of adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Results A total of 2 528 063 screening mammograms from 1 100 447 women (mean age, 57 years ± 10 [SD]) were included. In crude analyses, DBT (1 693 727 screening mammograms vs 834 336 DM screening mammograms) demonstrated lower RR (10.3% [95% CI: 10.3, 10.4] for DM vs 8.9% [95% CI: 8.9, 9.0] for DBT; P < .001) and higher CDR (4.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 4.3, 4.6] vs 5.3 of 1000 [95% CI: 5.2, 5.5]; P < .001), PPV1 (4.3% [95% CI: 4.2, 4.5] vs 5.9% [95% CI: 5.7, 6.0]; P < .001), and biopsy rates (14.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 14.2, 14.7] vs 17.6 of 1000 [95% CI: 17.4, 17.8]; P < .001). PPV3 was similar between cohorts (30.0% [95% CI: 29.2, 30.9] for DM vs 29.3% [95% CI: 28.7, 29.9] for DBT; P = .16). After adjustment for age, breast density, site, and index year, associations remained stable with respect to statistical significance. Conclusion Women undergoing digital breast tomosynthesis had improved screening mammography outcomes compared with women who underwent digital mammography. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bae and Seo in this issue.

Relationship between Race and Access to Newer Mammographic Technology in Women with Medicare Insurance

Background Racial disparities in breast cancer mortality have been reported. Mammographic technology has undergone two major technology transitions since 2000: first, the transition from screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and second, the transition to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Purpose To examine the relationship between use of newer mammographic technology and race in women receiving mammography services. Materials and Methods This was a multiyear (January 2005 to December 2020) retrospective study of women aged 40-89 years with Medicare fee-for-service insurance who underwent mammography. Data were obtained using a 5% research identifiable sample of all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Within-institution and comparable-institution use of mammographic technology between Black women or women of other races and White women were assessed with multivariable logistic and linear regression, respectively, adjusted for age, race, Charlson comorbidity index, per capita income, urbanicity, and institutional capability. Results Between 2005 and 2020, there were 4 028 696 institutional mammography claims for women (mean age, 72 years ± 8 [SD]). Within an institution, the odds ratio (OR) of Black women receiving digital mammography rather than SFM in 2005 was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.91; P < .001) when compared with White women; these differences remained until 2009. Compared with White women, the use of DBT within an institution was less likely for Black women from 2015 to 2020 (OR, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.81, 0.87; P < .001). Across institutions, there were racial differences in digital mammography use, which followed a U-shaped pattern, and the differences peaked at 3.8 percentage points less for Black compared with White women (95% CI: -6.1, -1.6; P = .001) in 2011 and then decreased to 1.2 percentage points less (95% CI: -2.2, -0.2; P = .02) in 2016. Conclusion In the Medicare population, Black women had less access to new mammographic imaging technology compared with White women for both the transition from screen-film mammography to digital mammography and then for the transition to digital breast tomosynthesis. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee and Lawson in this issue.

Barriers to Breast Cancer-Screening Adherence in Vulnerable Populations

Breast cancer screening through periodic mammography has been effective in decreasing mortality and reducing the impact of this disease. However, adherence to screening does not meet the desired expectations from all populations. The main objective of this review is to explore the barriers that affect adherence to breast cancer-screening programs in vulnerable populations according to race and/or ethnicity in order to propose measures to reduce the lack of adherence. We conducted a search of publications in the PubMed Central and Scopus databases. The eligible criteria for the articles were as follows: original quantitative studies appearing in SJR- and/or JCR-indexed journals from 2016 to 2021 in English or Spanish. Most of them present common barriers, such as race/ethnicity (47%), low socioeconomic (35.3%) and educational levels (29.4%), no family history of cancer and being single (29.4%), medical mistrust and a health information gap (23.5%), lack of private health insurance (17.6%) and not having annual health checks (17.6%). The target populations with the lowest adherence were Black, Asian, Hispanic and foreign women. Implementing awareness campaigns focused on these populations should be promoted, as well as working on diversity, cultural acceptance and respect with healthcare workers, in order to improve breast cancer-screening adherence worldwide.

Addressing Disparities Related to Access of Multimodality Breast Imaging Services Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Despite technological advancements focused on reducing breast cancer mortality through early detection, there have been reported disparities in the access to these imaging services with underserved patient populations (including racial minority groups and patients of low socioeconomic status) showing underutilization compared to other patient groups. These underserved populations tend to have more advanced breast cancer presentations, in part due to delays in diagnosis resulting in later stage of disease presentation. To make matters worse, the COVID-19 pandemic declared in March 2020 has resulted in significant healthcare disruptions leading to extensive delays in breast imaging services which are expected to negatively impact breast cancer mortality long-term. Given the worsening disparity in breast cancer mortality among racial/ethnic minorities and financially disadvantaged groups, it is vital to address these disparity gaps with the goal of reducing the barriers to timely breast cancer diagnosis and addressing breast cancer mortality differences among breast cancer patients. Therefore, this review aims to provide a discussion highlighting the disparities related to breast imaging access, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on these disparities, current targeted interventions implemented in breast imaging practices to reduce these disparities, and future directions on the journey to reducing disparity gaps for breast imaging patients. Tackling the root cause factors of the persistent breast cancer-related disparities is critical to meeting the needs of patients who are disadvantaged and can lead to continued improvement in the quality of individualized care for patients who have higher breast cancer morbidity and mortality risks.

Women's Breast Cancer Screening Confidence by Screening Modality and Breast Density: A Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Survey Study

Objective: Little is known about women's confidence in their breast cancer screening. We sought to characterize breast cancer screening confidence by imaging modality and clinically assessed breast density. Materials and Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional survey of women ages 40-74 years who received digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and/or breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a normal screening exam in the prior year. The main outcome was women's confidence (Very, Somewhat, A little, Not at all) in their breast cancer screening detecting any cancer. Multivariable logistic regression identified correlates of being very confident in breast cancer screening by screening modality group: Group 1) DM vs. DBT and Group 2) DM or DBT alone vs. with supplemental MRI. Results: Overall, 2329 of 7439 (31.3%) invitees participated, with 30%-61% being very confident in their screening across modality and density subgroups. Having dense versus nondense breasts was associated with lower odds of being very confident (Group 1: odds ratio [OR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.79; Group 2: OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40-0.79). There were no differences by modality within Group 1, but for Group 2, women undergoing MRI had higher odds of being very confident (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.21-2.37). Other correlates of greater screening confidence were as follows: Group 1-being offered a screening test choice and cost not influencing modality received, and Group 2-decision satisfaction and worry. Conclusions: Women with dense breasts had lower screening confidence regardless of screening modality and those undergoing MRI had higher confidence regardless of density. The importance of informing women about screening options is underscored by observed associations between screening choice, decision satisfaction, and screening confidence. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02980848.

Health Disparity and Breast Cancer Outcomes in Asian Women

Health disparities in Asian women are complex and multifactorial. Screening attendance is low among Asian women, regardless of nativity or acculturation, and breast cancer detection has decreased by more than half in this population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The follow-up rate after abnormal screening results is similarly poor among Asian women compared with that among other groups, often resulting in a delay of cancer diagnosis. Yet the incidence of breast cancer in Asian women is increasing in the United States, with no such increase observed in other racial and ethnic groups in recent years. The age distribution of breast cancer in Asian women is distinct and peaks in younger women, underscoring the importance of early screening. The predilection for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-enriched tumors may reflect the unique biologic characteristics of breast cancer among Asian subgroups, which are not well understood. Known biomarkers for breast cancer risk such as body mass index and mammographic density do not perform the same way in Asian women, as compared with other groups, owing to a lack of Asian population-specific data. Within that limitation, the association between body mass index and breast cancer is strongest in older Asian women, and the association between breast density and breast cancer is strongest in younger Asian women. There is an unmet need to improve breast cancer care in Asian women, a heterogeneous and growing population that is facing an increasing burden of breast cancer. An invited commentary by Leung is available online. ^©RSNA, 2022.

Association of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography With Risk of Interval Invasive and Advanced Breast Cancer

Importance

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) was developed with the expectation of improving cancer detection in women with dense breasts. Studies are needed to evaluate interval invasive and advanced breast cancer rates, intermediary outcomes related to breast cancer mortality, by breast density and breast cancer risk.

Objective

To evaluate whether DBT screening is associated with a lower likelihood of interval invasive cancer and advanced breast cancer compared with digital mammography by extent of breast density and breast cancer risk.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cohort study of 504 427 women aged 40 to 79 years who underwent 1 003 900 screening digital mammography and 375 189 screening DBT examinations from 2011 through 2018 at 44 US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities with follow-up for cancer diagnoses through 2019 by linkage to state or regional cancer registries.

Exposures

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density; BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rates per 1000 examinations of interval invasive cancer within 12 months of screening mammography and advanced breast cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) within 12 months of screening mammography, both estimated with inverse probability weighting.

Results

Among 504 427 women in the study population, the median age at time of mammography was 58 years (IQR, 50-65 years). Interval invasive cancer rates per 1000 examinations were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography (overall, 0.57 vs 0.61, respectively; difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06; P = .43) or among all the 836 250 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk less than 1.67% (low to average-risk) or all the 413 061 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk of 1.67% or higher (high risk) across breast density categories. Advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography among women at low to average risk or at high risk with almost entirely fatty, scattered fibroglandular densities, or heterogeneously dense breasts. Advanced cancer rates per 1000 examinations were significantly lower for DBT vs digital mammography for the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer (13 291 examinations in the DBT group and 31 300 in the digital mammography group; 0.27 vs 0.80 per 1000 examinations; difference, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10) but not for women at low to average risk (10 611 examinations in the DBT group and 37 796 in the digital mammography group; 0.54 vs 0.42 per 1000 examinations; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.32).

Conclusions and Relevance

Screening with DBT vs digital mammography was not associated with a significant difference in risk of interval invasive cancer and was associated with a significantly lower risk of advanced breast cancer among the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer. No significant difference was observed in the 96.4% of women with nondense breasts, heterogeneously dense breasts, or with extremely dense breasts not at high risk.

Initiation and tolerance of chemoprevention among women with high-risk breast lesions: the potential of low-dose tamoxifen

Purpose

High-risk lesions (HRLs) of the breast are an indication for chemoprevention, yet uptake is low, largely due to concerns about side effects. In 2019, low-dose (5 mg) tamoxifen was demonstrated to reduce breast cancer risk with improved tolerance. We describe chemoprevention uptake in an academic clinic before and after the introduction of low-dose tamoxifen.

Methods

Females age ≥ 35 with HRLs who established care from April 2017 through January 2020 and eligible for chemoprevention were included. Rates of chemoprevention initiation before and after the introduction of low-dose tamoxifen (pre-2019 vs. post-2019) were compared with chi-squared tests. Logistic regression identified demographic and clinical factors associated with chemoprevention initiation. Kaplan–Meier methods determined the rates of discontinuation.

Results

Among 660 eligible females with HRLs, 22.7% initiated chemoprevention. Median time from first visit to chemoprevention initiation was 54 days (interquartile range (IQR): 0–209); 31.0% (46/150) started chemoprevention > 6 months after their initial visit. Chemoprevention uptake was not significantly different pre-2019 vs. post-2019 (21.2% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.16); however, post-2019, low-dose tamoxifen became the most popular option (41.5%, 34/82). On multivariable analyses, age and breast cancer family history were significantly associated with chemoprevention initiation. Discontinuation rates at 1 year were lowest for low-dose tamoxifen (6.7%) vs. tamoxifen 20 mg (15.0%), raloxifene (20.4%), or an aromatase inhibitor (20.0%).

Conclusion

In this modern cohort, 22.7% of females with HRLs initiated chemoprevention with 31.0% initiating chemoprevention > 6 months after their first visit. Low-dose tamoxifen is now the most popular choice for chemoprevention, with low discontinuation rates at 1 year.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10549-022-06577-5.

OUP accepted manuscript

Objective

Health care providers increasingly rely upon predictive algorithms when making important treatment decisions, however, evidence indicates that these tools can lead to inequitable outcomes across racial and socio-economic groups. In this study, we introduce a bias evaluation checklist that allows model developers and health care providers a means to systematically appraise a model’s potential to introduce bias.

Materials and Methods

Our methods include developing a bias evaluation checklist, a scoping literature review to identify 30-day hospital readmission prediction models, and assessing the selected models using the checklist.

Results

We selected 4 models for evaluation: LACE, HOSPITAL, Johns Hopkins ACG, and HATRIX. Our assessment identified critical ways in which these algorithms can perpetuate health care inequalities. We found that LACE and HOSPITAL have the greatest potential for introducing bias, Johns Hopkins ACG has the most areas of uncertainty, and HATRIX has the fewest causes for concern.

Discussion

Our approach gives model developers and health care providers a practical and systematic method for evaluating bias in predictive models. Traditional bias identification methods do not elucidate sources of bias and are thus insufficient for mitigation efforts. With our checklist, bias can be addressed and eliminated before a model is fully developed or deployed.

Conclusion

The potential for algorithms to perpetuate biased outcomes is not isolated to readmission prediction models; rather, we believe our results have implications for predictive models across health care. We offer a systematic method for evaluating potential bias with sufficient flexibility to be utilized across models and applications.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Breast Cancer: A Collaboration Between the American College of Radiology Commissions on Women and Diversity and Breast Imaging

Since the 1980s, the mortality rate from breast cancer in the United States has dropped almost 40%. The quality of life and survival gains from early detection and improved treatment have not been shared equally by all ethnic groups, however. Many factors, including social determinants of health, unequal access to screening and oncologic care, and differences in incidence, tumor biology, and risk factors, have contributed to these unequal breast cancer outcomes. As breast radiologists approach their own patients, they must be aware that minority women are disproportionately affected by breast cancer at earlier ages and that non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic women are impacted by greater severity of disease than non-Hispanic White women. Guidelines that do not include women younger than 50 and/or have longer intervals between examinations could have a disproportionately negative impact on minority women. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic could worsen existing disparities in breast cancer mortality. Increased awareness and targeted efforts to identify and mitigate all of the underlying causes of breast cancer disparities will be necessary to realize the maximum benefit of screening, diagnosis, and treatment and to optimize quality of life and mortality gains for all women. Breast radiologists, as leaders in breast cancer care, have the opportunity to address and reduce some of these disparities for their patients and communities.